In a message dated 8/11/2008 4:23:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dalton@gmail.com writes:
I don't doubt that it happens. It's completely unacceptable and is why people should not cite Wikipedia is serious research.>>
--------------------------- I can't agree with that. We have many articles that are quite good, clear, concise and very close to the money. Also I'm not sure where you draw the line between serious research and not-serious research?
When I do my work, I use Wikipedia as a tool to ferret out other sources, to explain and illuminate side-issues, etc. The main focus of the thesis should rely on both primary and secondary material and Wikipedia can serve as secondary material. However if Wikipedia is your sole source of information, then you are in trouble. But if Wikipedia is a main source, or even a *starting* source from which you launch your digging, using its article citations to ferret out more details, then Wikipedia should be cited, whether you quote it or not.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut000500000000... )
...If Wikipedia is...a *starting* source from which you launch your digging, using its article citations to ferret out more details, then Wikipedia should be cited, whether you quote it or not.
Will Johnson
Exactly. I don't think anything more than a statement that the Wikipedia article was consulted is necessary, if actual material from it is not used, but the viewing and reading of the Wikipedia article "to get ideas" or "identify sources" is precisely the issue. It is the "getting of ideas" without crediting the source of the ideas which is the issue.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
...If Wikipedia is...a *starting* source from which you launch your digging, using its article citations to ferret out more details, then Wikipedia should be cited, whether you quote it or not.
Will Johnson
Exactly. I don't think anything more than a statement that the Wikipedia article was consulted is necessary, if actual material from it is not used, but the viewing and reading of the Wikipedia article "to get ideas" or "identify sources" is precisely the issue. It is the "getting of ideas" without crediting the source of the ideas which is the issue.
I don't see why Wikipedia should be special-cased here. It's not common practice in academic publishing to cite all the research tools you used in arriving at your actual sources. I don't usually cite Lexis-Nexis when I look up an article through it, or JSTOR, or my local reference librarian, or Wikipedia, or Britannica, or some website with a list of interesting articles, or Google. If all Wikipedia was used for was as exploratory research to get pointers into the literature, then it'd be uncommon practice to cite it. Heck, it's not even common to cite journal-published survey papers used in that manner, unless you're citing the survey itself as an overview. As a reviewer I would actually probably recommend such citations be taken out, if they were present---the purpose of citations in an academic paper is not to retrace the idiosyncratic path of your personal research history.
-Mark